Star Trek Expanded Universe:Community Portal/Archive 1
ARCHIVED ON SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2006 Major Updates As many of users have requested, I will shortly begin updating the site and clearing up requested files and articles as well as doing a new homepage! --Luke80 :Sneg has drafted a version of the Main Page which is pretty nifty. You should consider just putting that up. Several of us have agreed we like it. BTW, where have you been? --Sasoriza 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC) I have Indeed redone the Main Page in Sneg's image. I have been away recently because of private personal reasons. But I should be back more often from now. --Luke80 14:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Canon Characters from Memory Alpha I just added Benjamin Sisko to the wiki, seeing as that was one of the most needed pages. I copied all the data and photos from the Memory Alpha article. What I'm wondering, though, is if all of that is needed. Should we copy the MA articles for those characters verbatim, and add to it as needed, or should we trim out stuff? How do you think we should go about filling in articles for canon characters? -- TimPendragon 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC) :If it's someone as important as Sisko, it should be copied from MA. Minor characters, not so much. The really important articles should always be copied from MA. However, remove the episode links. If we keep the episode links in, they would end up being the most wanted articles, and we'd have to add them, which in turn would just make us MA with fanon added. --Kevin W. 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ::Done. :-) Anyone else want to work on the sidebar (if that needs to be updated)? I'm not quite sure about the coding for that. -- TimPendragon 05:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) :::When ever I copied from MA , usually I'll trim stuff down. No need for the TONS of information over here. --Sneg 12:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Another question: should we copy any of the info from the Non-Canon Wiki into articles like Sisko's and Janeway's? For Pendragon, I acknowledge some of the novel material, but others may not, so I don't know how far we should go there. Which brings up another question. In the Joseph Carey article, I added a section for the Pendragon timeline data. When it comes time for me to do that for Sisko, Janeway, Riker, etc, should I append it to the main article, or should I create, say a separate Benjamin Sisko (Pendragon) article? -- TimPendragon 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC) :I think there should be separate articles for separate continuities, like the USS Intrepid articles for the regular ship and the one used in the Intrepid fic. --Kevin W. 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ::That's what I figured. For a minor character like Joseph Carey, I think appending it to the main article is fine, but for a major one (with a lot of Pendragon data), I'll do separate ones. -- TimPendragon 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) User Info boxes I'm trying to add User Info Boxes like ont eh Wookiepedia but if anyone can help please do. --Sneg 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Era Icons I've been sniffing around the Wookiepedia version and noticed alot of articles have this little graphic in the upper right hand corner to mark "which timeline" the character, ship, item, etc is from. We should probably do something like that for here as well. It would be really cool and it would point to which timelines certain things are in right away. We could use for ENT timeline, USS Enterprise Command Insigniafor TOS, USS Enterprise Command Pin for the TWOK-TUC movie timeline, etc etc. We'll just have to make them "uniformed" and "jazzy". Thoughts? --Sneg 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :I like the idea. It'd take a while to implement, but we should do it. You can use 2360s Combadge, 2371 Combadge.png and 29th Century Combadge for their respective eras. --Kevin W. 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :Use the TMP pin for TMP eras, and use this one Starfleet Flag Officer Pin for TWOK-TUC. --Kevin W. 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC) ::Sounds like a plan. Just need to find time to "dress them up" so they look good as icons in the corner. :) --Sneg 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Starship Template Suggestion Figured we should have some "standards" here even if we are just "expanded" (fandom-canon). I used Wiki's style for actual Naval Ships to create this page (even though I need to update a few things) and I just edited Maybe we should do all individual ships like this? Just a thought. If people don't like it I'll try and come up with another format but I think we should have some uniformity. -- Sneg 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC) :Well I just did some "cleaning" (if you can call it that). Any starship entry that was listed as 'USS Starship (NCC-1234)' has had a sidebar placed on it. Any article that didn't have the (NCC-1234) after it's name I did not update. Personally, I think we should list all ships in this format. In the next day or so I think I'll change the and the to the simpler format. --Sneg 15:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ::I think the "General Characteristics" should be revamped some how, as most starships of the same class should have the same specifications. - Lieutenant Ayala 20:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ::: Does anyone object if I borrow the same format for the Intrepid Wikipedia? Capthunter 16:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) There is an Intrepid Wikipedia??? And yes, you are quite welcome to use the template if that is alright with its creator. --Luke80 12:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) :: Yeah Hidden Frontier has an excellent series wiki, so I figured we might as well follow suit. it's also quite useful from a roleplaying point of view. I'll ask Sneg when he returns if we can use the template. I don't think he'll mind though. He's already used it for the Justice entry on our one. :) Cheers. Capthunter 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Site Name I may be opening a can of worms (and it may already have been opened elsewhere) but has it been discussed that the two Star Trek wikias (other than Memory Alpha) have their names switched. In most usage I am familiar with, "Expanded Universe" is the semi-cannon stuff like licensed novels, comics etc., and "Non-Cannon" is the unlicensed stuff. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) : mmmm... well, I have been thinking about that. Any suggestions for a new site name? --Luke80 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC) There are four Star Trek wikis that I am now aware of. As I mentioned above, the current names of the 2nd and 3rd are essentially swapped from their implied meanings (see my first note). Unfortunately, as logical as swapping names might be, it would probably cause much confusion. So I also proposed two other options. ( C is my preferred choice, as I think three Memory ____ is a bit much. ) —MJBurrage • TALK • 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC) :Why not "Star Trek Fan Wiki"? Because isn't that really what this is? A site for fans with fan fiction to try and keep the universe sane? --Sneg 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) ::I wish I had thought of that, Fan Wiki is definitely better than IDIC Wiki (I think I was trying too hard to be cute) Fan Wiki sounds better, and is more descriptive. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :::If that is what everyone suggests then I will consider it. Thanks. --Luke80 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ::::LOL - you actually crossed IDIC out to put Fan Wiki? Well personally I don't know how it hit me but it does fit - "Star Trek Fan Wiki" gets my vote (if anyone is counting). And thinking about it further sounds not only catchy but I bet someone could come up with a song for that. :-) --Sneg 01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ::::: Personally I rather like Expanded Universe. Fan Wiki sounds a bit too much like fanw**k to me. ;) Capthunter 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC) :Chiming in: (Is this a moot discussion now, since the last message was in July?) "Fan Wiki" seems best for its purpose, although "Expanded Universe" carries more charisma. As an alternative in favor of the latter, how about this: MA uses a template to denote "Real World" articles (written from a RL POV). Perhaps we could mark fanon pages in similar fashion? Or, in reverse--if fanon pages outnumber actual "expanded universe" material (for those who understand the difference)--mark those pages which AREN'T fanon. This might help to resolve continuity clashes--say, for wild example, two timelines of events following Nemesis, where both could not have happened. Delineating one from the other might lessen confusion. Yet, with so many different continuities, marking pages so, and then keeping up with them, could be time-consuming. This could however permit retention of the site name. --Sasorizaa1 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Table colors I was wondering if we should "color code" some of the tables. Thoughts? --Sneg 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Its an idea... anyone else have anything to say? --Luke80 08:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) ::I'm not sure of my own full thought but if we have characters listed like Federation officers the table would be "blue" instead of "yellow" (like it is now) and Klingons would have a "red" table. Just a thought. Like I said not fully fleshed out yet. --68.108.226.140 12:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC) User:Captian Jamie A. So, what are we supposed to do about this guy? He doesn't use correct grammar, his pages are nonsense and he doesn't allow editing of said pages. Let's take a vote. All in favor of nuking his pages and banning him, say "I". --Kevin W. 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC) :Now he's changed his name to User:"Jamie" and possible the name of User:Cmdr. Elizabeth A.--Sneg 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ::So, nuke his pages? --Kevin W. 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ::: I'd say yes. He doesn't seem to contribute anything beyond his own little corner and won't let anyone else work on his articles. That's not what a wiki is all about. JusticeCEO 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) :::: I'd say yes too. I'm all for inclusiveness, but there do need to be some standards for contributions. Capthunter 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC) User: Cmdr. David W. Guys. I can get this all cleanned up. But you'll just have to shut the crud up!! Jamie will listen to me but you guys need to be patient. 6:43 P.M. (August 14th) :::: Generally you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Just a thought. Capthunter 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Cpt. David W. Hello again. And yes, that's CAPTAIN David W. to you!! Iam in the process of creating an interesting story to show for some of the continuity errors and some of the gramatical ones as well. This will be cleaned up. Thanks for the advice Capthunter!!! 3:29 P.M. August 21. I hate to say it, but, as is obvious, he's back... and at it again.... --Sasoriza 18:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC) :We need to permaban him. A one-month ban has not worked. He has not learned his lesson and continues to cause problems. I suggest banning all of his "cohorts" as well. They seem like they're all the same person. All in favor of a permaban of his IP, say I. --Kevin W. 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ::I''''m normally loathe to take such drastic action against someone, but I'm afraid '''I have to agree in this case. This user apparently doesn't know what they're doing while adding ridiculous, implausible material which does nothing except possibly satisfy the user's ego, and requires significant work from others to clean up (which would not help the material anyway)... while cluttering the RC list with repeated saves. Shall we put it to a vote? --Sasoriza 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Jamie seems to be just a "fanboy." I honestly don't think his intention is to do anything wrong (but nonetheless, he is doing it). His user page and contributions give the impression of a 13 year-old who's coming up with "KEWL" ideas. Who among us didn't want the biggest and baddest starship at that age? He probably doesn't even realize that what he's posting is simply ridiculous. Fortunately, most of us grow out of that. I think what's needed are some guidelines posted on the Main Page, to cut down on the "fanboy" types. Yes, you can come here and make up things on the spot (it doesn't have to be from fanfic or an rpg), but it has to be serious and plausible, and not like "My captain is a half-Q, half-Borg who's married to a Xindi-aquatic from 5 millionth century and commands the USS Bad-Ass with forty-seven thousand phaser cannons." --TimPendragon 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) All right "Kevin W." You have problems with patience! This will work out in the end but not by kicking this guy in the rear. I may be Captain Jamie's friend, but I'm not a "cohort" of his. You, on the other hand, are a perfectionist who won't ease up and wait. So shut the crud up and let me finish this project. In the mean time, all of your previous entries will tell enough. Get a clue. Cpt. David W. September 21. 3:31 P.M. :Cpt. David W., this isn't the place for that kind of talk, and that's useless to the discussion. (I also noticed how you changed your name-calling, a little late.) Please try to be polite. (Of course, the same goes for everyone.) --Sasoriza 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :You're damn right I'm a perfectionist! This wiki needs to be as perfect as a fanon wiki can be, and Jamie isn't helping the cause at all. Patience isn't going to help. We've been patient with him and he e-screams at us in broken English that is very difficult to understand. He doesn't contribute worthwhile stuff and he just wastes server space. Kicking him in the rear will work. A permaban is the only way to get rid of time wasters and space takers. He needs to be gotten rid of permanently. He stands in the way of making this wiki better, so don't go telling me to "shut the crud up" as you put it, because you're wrong. --Kevin W. 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Parallel Universe Do you think that material from Parallel Universes should have their own catagory? --Luke80 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) :It will get very confusing (all those parallel universes and such) but as long as there is a (mirror) or (parallel universe A) or something after the article title - it makes sense to me. --Sneg 21:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC) ::How about we put (Mirror) after Mirror Universe material, and (Parallel) after Parallel Universe material? --Luke80 09:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) :::Sounds like the best way to go. All universes parallel to ours would be (Parallel) and all Mirror Universe stuff will be (Mirror). Just like Time Travel it gives me a headache but is probably the best way to go. --Sneg 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Vote regarding userboxes CURRENT VOTE STATUS: IN FAVOR OF THE LIMIT - 4 AGAINST THE LIMIT - 2 NEUTRAL - 3 As it stands right now, Sneg and I are arguing over whether users should be allowed to have more than 12 userboxes on their user page. I believe that there shouldn't be a limit and Sneg believes there should. Please state your opinion here and whether you believe there should be a limit or not. --Kevin W. 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :I like and respect Sneg; we seem to be of a similar mind on things, but I believe there should be a limit. Articles are the point, aren't they, not user self-indulgence? Too much focus on userboxes diverts attention from expanding the useful database. However, at the same time, if the userboxes actually serve a useful purpose, and 12 (or whatever number) isn't enough, perhaps there should be more (but they shouldn't be limitless). It's really a matter of self-moderation; users should have enough responsibility to not abuse them or use them for their own sake. That said... I vote for a limit. One simple reason: bandwidth. (No hard feelings, Sneg!) --Sasorizaa1 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::Eh? Hm. Confused about the sides, but okay- personally I don't see why we need so many of these user boxes anyway; many of which don't even have anything to do with Star Trek. But if they're gonna be here, they should be useful, which means limiting the number doesn't make much sense (even if it is a huge eye soar.) So I think I'll remain neutral for the moment, and wait to see more of the argument. - Lieutenant Ayala 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :::Um, Sasorizaa1, Sneg is the one in favor of limits. I'm the one who's against it. --Kevin W. 04:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Oh. Whoops. Nothing against you either. Reasoning still stands. --Sasorizaa1 04:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :::::Please bold your vote when adding comments. Thank you. --Kevin W. 05:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :To be honest, I really don't care either way, since I won't have too many boxes on my user page regardless. So, color me neutral. --JusticeCEO 11:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::Sasorizaa1 and Lieutenant Ayala said it beautifully. The goal of this site is the articles "not user self-indulgence". So obviously my vote goes for a limit. --Sneg 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :::It's not self-indulgence. It's a matter of choice. If I want to indulge myself, I'll go have a bar of chocolate, not put more userboxes on my user page. There's nothing indulging about it. --Kevin W. 13:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::::I'm going neutral, although I will abide by whatever gets the most votes. --Luke80 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::I'm a newbie here, but I'll chime in. Count me as a vote for a limit. As expressed above, articles are the point. This isn't a "get to know you" site like MySpace or LiveJournal. Nothing against anyone, but that just seems logical to me. -- TimPendragon 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :::Wikipedia isn't a "'get to know you' site like MySpace or LiveJournal" either, but they allow it. The fact of the matter is, since Memory Alpha doesn't have a rule regarding userboxes, we default to that of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have a limit. I fail to see why you guys can't understand that. --Kevin W. 01:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ::::And I fail to see the benefit of having these things, period. They've got zip to do with the purpose of the site. Why are you so concerned about these relatively trivial features instead of working on more articles? -- TimPendragon 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ::::: Consider me neutral. Frankly I don't really see the point of them either. As Tim said, this isn't a myspace site. That said, I don't care all that much either. Capthunter 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC) When do we want to close out this vote? Say a week? So it would end on September 4th. Or two weeks? (September 11th)? --Sneg 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC) :As it stands right now, there are more neutral votes than there are either yea or nay. We need something definite. --Kevin W. 03:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC) :: Looks pretty definite to me. Three for a limit, one against a limit, and 4 neutral. I'd say the 'limits' have it. Capthunter 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ::: No, they don't. More neutrals than any other votes means it's an unresolved issue. --Kevin W. 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC) This entire debate can be deleted now. As you can see by my user page, I've found a way around the limit that doesn't impose on anyone else. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. --Kevin W. 04:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :In light of the numerous new templates uploaded recently, I'm changing my vote to "In favor of limit." Some of these tastes are just not gonna pop up more than once or twice in a community of like, 8 people. But in the future, I hope this is rescinded (once we get more people.) I'd also like to see (someday...) a userbox suggestion page, so people don't just go randomly creating what ever they like, cause that seems ridiculous and impossible to control. No personal ill-will intended. - Lieutenant Ayala 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC) ::Once again, I ask: do my large number of userboxes cause any harm whatsoever to anyone? I think not. --Kevin W. 23:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :::No, they don't. And I don't think restricting User pages is a fair either. I'm more against the fact that they all have their own template page. I could make hundreds based on my every whim, every minor joke no one would understand, and it'd be just as annoying to everyone. I think this could all be settled if instead of giving them their own template page, just put the info on the template page on your user page. Instead of two pages, one. - Lieutenant Ayala 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Cascading Stylesheet (CSS) First off, let me ask: Who exactly are the admins here? Luke80, I gather. Anyone else? Because we could sure use some stylesheet tweaks for "class" and "id", like that found in MA's MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki:Common.css (or even, dare I say it, copying of those stylesheets then setting certain fixed properties for STEU). The problem is, no one can get in to set properties but admins, and whoever they are (besides Luke), ain't doin' it. There's a logical (and hopefully obvious) reason for this: Whenever someone loads (views) a page, the code for everything on that page is loaded. That means this happens every time a visitor goes to that page. Using CSS cuts down on bandwidth, and also allows for some nice presentation, by distributing certain fixed properties across the entire site. That means less coding for us template editors and anyone else who needs a certain effect on presented documents, which reduces the load on STEU's database. It boils down to better site maintenance and long-term stability (by not overtaxing the servers unnecessarily). It also lends itself to an easy consensus. In short, (as I've said, elsewhere)... We really need a better stylesheet. (Or, could you at least make the current stylesheet visible, so we know what classes & such we have to work with?) --Sasorizaa1 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) ::I think Luke80 is the "top dog" (and possible only dog) here on STEUD (ew that's a mouthfull). Unless he wants to start appointing some "senior" people to over see stuff. Which makes me wonder.... we probably should have a major house cleaning/rule guidelines discussion. --Sneg 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Category: Timeline Births/Deaths Under the above section per individual years (2335, 2336, etc.), we have at least two ways of doing this: * November 11: Stephen April is born. (ARC) *Jordan Rampart is born. (ARC) which produces * November 11: Stephen April is born. (ARC) *Jordan Rampart is born. (ARC) or *Jordan Rampart is born. (ARC) ;November 11 *Stephen April is born. (ARC) which produces *Jordan Rampart is born. (ARC) ;November 11 *Stephen April is born. (ARC) I think the first looks better and takes up less space. (It's also more like the Memory Alpha method.) The semicolon in the second example produces an odd line space after "November 11", in this example, as well as pushes more content down the page (when brevity should be the goal). If enough new dates are added over time, it might look rather messy. A third option might be headers for each month in a given year, but that accumulates as well, and probably should be avoided for the same reasons. But, we should come to a consensus. I think we should stick to the first formatting option. What does everyone else think? In the interests of brevity and uniformity (no sense going back now and reformatting months for every year--changes which I think are unnecessary), I'm going to revert 2335 and 2350 to their previous formats for the time being. Let's get some consensus on this. --Sasoriza 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ::I forget where I saw the ";" being used but figured non-dated items should go first - otherwise it looks like it falls under the "named" date. Personally, which ever way we go with we should stay "uniformed" (which raises the question asked before - we should have a page that say "here is how things are formated here in regards to ." --Sneg 22:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC) :::*''we should have a page that say(s) "here is how things are format(t)ed here in regards to .'' :::Yep. Definitely. :::If it's a matter of being bold, could still do that too, without adding line space. --Sasoriza 00:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) ::::2379‎; 04:44 . . Sasoriza (Talk | contribs) (→Events - trying monthly headers - thoughts - looks good to me. --Sneg 12:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Site formatting Do we have a standard format Help page anywhere (yet)? Cause I know at least I'' prefer the style of "USS ''Starship" over "USS Starship", while people have changed that on various articles. Also, I listed an episode reference after a paragraph or two and it was removed. I don't see the problem in having it, as it didn't redlink, it was just a background note. I guess I can understand the want to have ships at their full name page ("USS Voyager (NCC-74656)" instead of "USS Voyager"), but when a ship is the only ship with that name just the USS Starship title seems appropriate because people usually aren't gonna type in the reg. number. If any of these formats have been agreed to anywhere, point me in that direction. - Lieutenant Ayala 05:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC) :We sure need one. (Luke80 needs to appoint a couple admins to oversee things when he isn't around. I nominate Sneg.) :I don't have a problem with registries included in the ship-name page space, but I do think it should only be used when different ships exist with the same name. However, including the registry now saves others trouble later, if they add another ship which does have the same name. :As far as the "USS" issue, the precedent I've seen comes from the ST Encyclopedias (Okudapedias) & Chronologies (Okudachrons). (Though books may be considered apocryphal, the Okudas were officially involved with establishing much of the content we use). Code-wise, the obvious advantage is it makes for less typing. Since ship names are supposed to be italicized, it's easier to put USS Starship than it is to go [[USS Starship|USS Starship]]. Save space = more room for other data = less bandwidth = better long-term site stability, meaning we can keep on doing what we love. Plus it just looks cooler. --Sasoriza 06:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks for the vote of confidence Sasoriza. :-) But until Luke80 makes the call we are just "heavy contributors" here. :-) If we do form a "Council" to oversite this site, my first goal would be formating. Unfortunately I don't know CCS but I would want to see uniformity of articles. Like you said the with USS Enterprise vs USS Enterprise debate (which like you I'm at a lose which should be right) --Sneg 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC) :Only the actual ship name is supposed to be italicized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan The USS is non-italicized. Real world and Trek canon back me up. --Kevin W. 21:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ::That's understood Kevin (that just the name should be italizied) but for coding purposes it's easier to type USS Starship than it is to go [[USS Starship|USS Starship]] (especially when dealing with Templates). But that is an issue that will be addressed if we ever form a committee to address formating on this site - until then - it's "mob rule" :-) (and speaking of "mob rule" did I mention I was from New Jersey?) :-) --Sneg 22:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC) References and Abbreviations Sneg, thanks for adding the references to the timeline pages. That's something that definitely needed to be done. But I'm wondering if we should we abbreviate the series references? "TNG" and "DS9" are a lot less typing than spelling it out would be. In my own reference system for my Pendragon notes, I use "PDN", followed by the episode title, if applicable. The same kind of system has been used in Okuda's chronology and encyclopedia, I believe. That might be something we want to adopt. --TimPendragon 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :(EDIT): It would also be more like Memory Alpha... --TimPendragon 19:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC) ::Figured it was better to "spell it out" because not everyone will know what PDN or ARC or TotSF would stand for. (whew, that was a fun fixing and formating everything) --Sneg 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :::If PDN linked to Star Trek: Pendragon, they could figure it out. I can see it both ways. Maybe spell it out the first time it's used on a page, and then abbreviate the rest? And once again, thanks for all the hard work! :-) --TimPendragon 19:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC) ::::And if we decide to do that, I can do the reformatting. Give your fingers a well-deserved break. :-) --TimPendragon 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :I agree with Tim's prognosis: Spell it out once, then abbreviate. --Sasoriza 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :Edit: Except for TOS, TNG, DS9 etc. which are obviously familiar, so need no "explanation". --Sasoriza 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC) ::Only catch I can see is just because you spelled it out on one page it won't be spelled out on future pages. I was going to go "TOS", "TNG", "DS9" but figured if I was spelling out everything... might as well spell out EVERYTHING. :-) --Sneg 22:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :::I was thinking of spelling it out once per page, and have subsequent references be abbreviated. I think that's the best compromise. --TimPendragon 22:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :That's also what I was thinking--but then it occurred to me, if we have several different references layered on top of each other, the impression of the abbreviation becomes pretty much meaningless. So I'm reversing myself and agreeing w/Sneg's take. EXCEPT for the obvious--TNG, DS9, et al.--spell it out. --Sasoriza 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Template Creation Is there a tutorial on wikia somewhere for creating templates? I have no clue about the codes. I tried copying a template into the Scratchpad and playing around with it, but for some reason, most of the parameters show up as "noinclude." Is there a how-to somewhere? --TimPendragon 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :(Oops, meant to answer this.) Try these search results. --Sasoriza 03:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Non-Starfleet How about a generic template for civilian and/or non-Starfleet characters? --TimPendragon 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :Have you looked through the available character sidebars? If one of those isn't to your liking, let me know what you want and I'll see what I can come up with. --Sasoriza 03:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ::I've looked, and while I like them, especially the DS9 versions that you did (can ver1 be expanded to have the same options as ver2?), they all have things like "Rank" and "Current Assignment" that are required. That may not be applicable in a civilian character. --TimPendragon 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :::You might also try here, here and here, if the above link wasn't helpful (although it gets pretty advanced). :::On Template:DS9 Character2 I left most of the fields optional, including rank. You only have to change the color hex codes. If that still doesn't work (or you'd rather me do it), just yell. --Sasoriza 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :Okay, I created this. Let me know if that works for you, or if you have any problems. --Sasoriza 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ::It's fantastic. Thanks very much for working on it. I'm playing around in the scratchpad with some things, using those links you gave me (the last couple are extremely helpful), but it'll be a while before I'm up to speed. I've used the template on Drake Mallory, but even though I put in values for the "title" and "stationed" fields, it's showing up as if those parameters are blank. What's up with that? :::Fixed. --Sasoriza 05:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Oh, and perhaps it could be something like "residence" instead of "stationed", and maybe something other than "assignments"? Those aren't really big deals, though. --TimPendragon 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :I'll just leave it "stationed" for now, as it doesn't show up in the final result. I'll have to think about the other. --Sasoriza 05:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Duplicate mirror universe pages (Moved from Current Events page) I dont know what to do but we have 2 Mirror universe pages, Mirror Universe and Mirror universe. I think the Mirror Universe page's name should be changed to Mirror Universe in fan-made products because that it what it is mostly about. --(Comment made by User:Cjpwes) :Actually, Mirror Universe (the one in caps) should redirect to the other (mirror universe, the one in lower case). Also, discussions such as this should either be made here, or better yet, on the article's talk page. --Sasoriza 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Own Fan Works Is it appropriate to create pages about your own works even if they are virtually unknown? I created a series of short stories last year however they are no longer found on the internet.I just wanted approval before I began making pages :D --So Very Vulky :That's perfectly fine. Most of my Star Trek: Pendragon stories haven't seen online publication yet, so yup, that's all good. If you could give them references, with the series and/or story title, that would be helpful. Oh, when you post a message please remember to sign with --~~~~, which will automatically post your username and the timestamp. :-) --TimPendragon 19:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ::Ah thank-you. I still have the original synopsis and episode titles and so on so I shall. --So Very Vulky 19:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :::Yes, I am quite happy for people to "make stuff up" as long as it makes sense, is not rubbish, and does'nt contradict solid Star Trek facts. --Luke80 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Rigel system(s)? I'm planning on going in and creating some articles related to Rigel. There have been numerous interpretations of the "Rigel dilemma" over the years, and I wanted your input on how best to handle it before I start mucking about. Rigel VII was seen in "The Cage," and in "Mudd's Women" (TOS), we see a "lithium mining colony" on Rigel XII", which is supposed to be very remote. Numerous other references to Rigel crop up later in the series, the most blatant being in "The Doomsday Machine" when Spock says that the "Rigel colonies" are in the most densly populated area of the Federation, in the path of the planet-killer. McCoy visited a cabaret on Rigel II according to "Shore Leave". Mr. Hengist from "Wolf in the Fold" lived on Rigel IV, and many fans have speculated that there is a Vulcanoid population on Rigel V since a medical treatment for Vulcans came from there in "Journey to Babel". That's just TOS. Enterprise complicated matters by introducing "Rigel X" in the first episode, and the Rigelians in season four. There were also Rigellians (notice the spelling difference) in TMP, but they were also known as Chelons. Pocket Books has a lot of additional material (some contradictory) on the various Rigel planets and the various types of Rigellians. In "Mind Meld", the inhabitants of Rigel V are indeed a Vulcan offshoot, but in "Catalyst of Sorrows", they are human-looking with a Vulcan-type physiology. The Chelons are from some Rigel planet, and the Orions are occasionally connected to the Rigel system (primarily by FASA and similar RPGs). It's all pretty muddled, but Star Charts posited an explanation, saying that there were (at least) two Rigel systems. One was the "true Rigel" (Beta Orionis), and was said to be where Rigel XII, and possibly Rigel VII were. The other was much closer to Earth (allowing for the NX-01's visit there), and was called "Beta Rigel". That's where Rigel II, IV, V and X were (and possibly VII). I, for one, like that interpretation. In Pendragon continuity, I use a variety of sources, and take some things from the novels (like the Vulcanoid inhabitants of Rigel V). So, anyway, my point in all this is, if you all have different interpretations of the "Rigel dilemma", how should we go about making Rigel articles? --TimPendragon 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :Have you made any progress on this yet, Tim? I was thinking (scary, I know)... Maybe should just take MA's precedent as a cue. It also might be best served by listing all of the Rigel planets on one page -- then, and only then, separating the different systems to their own page, keeping those planets most likely to be under which-ever star on the page for that system. If you see what I mean. (I say that a lot, don't I.) --Sasoriza 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ::I think I follow, and it makes sense to me. I'm actually still not entirely settled on Rigel in Pendragon continuity, but that's mainly debating whether or not the Orions come from there. I'll get started on the basic articles. (EDIT: dagnabbit, that was me.) --TimPendragon 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Style guidelines Based on conversations with Sneg (and, apparently, a need for it), I've set up a rough, preliminary style guide. Like I said, it's rough; so I invite thoughts, comments, suggestions, etc. I'm sure there's something I missed. Since this is a community, everyone should have input. --Sasoriza 22:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Reference List Kinda related to the above, I suppose, but not altogether the same thing... Should we have a "List of Common References" page, to spell out abbreviations in use? Beyond just "TOS", "TNG", etc... There's "PDN", "ARC", "REM", and a host of others. I know we're spelling them out on multi-continuity pages, but maybe a list page would be helpful, too? --TimPendragon 06:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC) :We talked about that. Will try to get to it. --Sasoriza 08:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC) ::I can tackle that, if it helps. --12.22.249.3 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC) :::Cripes, that was me, sorry. This one computer at the office won't "remember" my login, and it slipped my mind. --TimPendragon 17:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC) ::::SLAP! How dare you! --Sasoriza 18:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Has anyone made a move on this yet? --Sasoriza 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Star Trek Expanded Universe sources would be a good title. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Unregistered users Something I was thinking about: Since we all seem to find unregistered users so annoying, how about blocking them from edits? Thereby forcing them to register an account? Other wikis do this. --Sasoriza 05:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :Agreed. --Kevin W. 05:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) URLs in articles Since a lot of our information is sourced from other websites, should we have a policy how and when we are supposed to link to them? I ask this because the software on the wiki adds a "guard prompt" when you enter a URL, and our intent should be to shuffle users around this wiki instead of off of it, so maybe, for example we could link to a page on this wiki about an offsite fanfic at all times, except in the one article about that fanfic itself. for example, all references from Trekmania would link to Trekmania, and then the only offsite link to http://trekmania.net would be on that page.. -- Captain M.K.B. 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC) wanted pages would it be ok to display around the site? the markup is simple, it might fit well on the main page Just a thought. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :That's why there's a link to (as well as red links). Anyone with moderate wiki knowledge (or who knows how to follow links) and wants to find out should be able to find their way to it. I, personally, don't think we need all those red links cluttering the main page, but a link that calls attention (" ", perhaps in the Navigation column) isn't a bad idea. --Sasoriza 03:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)